saxitoxin wrote:I agree with Patches. South America should forcibly retake Las Malvinas after giving a 90 days final offer of negotiation to the UK regime. Both of the principal British military officers during the '82 conflict say the UK is unable to launch a defense anymore so this should be able to be accomplished with minimal destruction.

If things heat up in the Persian Gulf, and NATO seems a bit preoccupied, then as ARG, I'd attack as well.

It would be interesting to see if the UK would nuke a major Argentinian city, thus killing millions of people to protect 3000 or so.

That's an interesting scenario.

If they did it would instantly reveal the location of all their nuclear weapons, since they're all stored on a single submarine, which would invite a devastating counter strike on Britain, or at least an attack to take-out the oil platforms in the North Sea, by one of the other nuclear powers; it would be an unheard-of opportunity for another nuclear power to suddenly know the precise location of every weapon of a second nuclear power. At the very least it would inspire Brazil to restart their nuclear weapons program, and probably Venezuela to start one. While the mullahs and imams dukes and viscounts running Britain are irrational enough to do it, for the last two reasons I don't think the U.S. would permit the UK to launch.

BigBallinStalin wrote:The issue of legitimacy is distinct from the use of force, or rather enforcement of the law. Therefore, something of yours taken by force is still yours, by legitimate claim--as far as property rights are concerned. The use of force/ enforcement is a separate issue. Enforcement can be used for restoring or protecting your legitimate claims, but it never grants you the "basis for legitimacy." Enforcement can be used to carry out the laws of a dictator as well. Legitimacy and enforcement are distinct concepts...

For example, a legitimate use of force would be taking back your rightful property. An illegitimate use of force would be armed robbery.

If you still think that "right by conquest" is legitimate, then with your position there's no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate claims to property. You may as well say that theft and voluntary trade are the same things, which doesn't make sense.

What's legitimate and what's not legitimate is decided by TPTB. China walks in and takes Tibet. We say it's not legitimate, the Chinese say otherwise.Israel took Jerusalem and now claim it as theirs and call it legitimate, others disagree.

Russia marched across Eastern Europe and brought down the Iron Curtain. To the Russians it was legitimate, to the US it was not. The US either lacked the will or the force required to see otherwise, so therefore Russian dominance over Eastern Europe was in effect quite legitimate. At least, until Russia not longer had the will or ability to hold on to those claims of "legitimacy" and lost their territories. Those who took the territories (the people living there) claim their own right to do so. And so it is, what is legitimate one day is not the next. It all depends on who has the will and ability to see to their claim.

I suppose you might just be playing devil's advocate. The Right of Conquest and the Spoils of War have always been legitimate prizes throughout history. France and England took spoils from Germany after WWI and called it legitimate and in doing so seeded the future war. At the time, Germany lacked the ability to apply force to dispute the allies legitimate claims and it took the Huns a good 20+ years before they could do something about.The US attacked Iraq and called it legitimate, and it was, did not Congress vote to use force? It became quite legitimate as far as the US was concerned.The US (and Europe) bombed the hell out of Libya and called it legitimate. And so it is. Ole Gadaffi lay dead now, sodomized just before he was killed and it is all legit. Saddam Hussein, legitimate leader of Iraq captured and tried. He was entirely correct when he said the Iraqi court which tried him did not have the legitimate right tto try him, for all the good that did Saddam as history shows us. He lacked the ability to apply force to uphold his legitimate claim where as the court that tried him had all the force required to try, convict and hang him dead.

In two sides of a dispute both are going to say they have a legitimate claim. Who is right? Who is wrong? Well, after they fight, the one left standing must be right....LOL

I'm not arguing the merits or the morality or the ethics of such, only that it exists and is a fundamental truth. I know you already know these things.

As to Trade and Theft being the same thing, there are certain....extreme Libertarian views (and anarchist, Marxist and other such philosophies) that argue Property is Theft. To them that's a legitimate claim. Depends on ones philosophy, Trade and Theft might just be the same thing. I don't happen to believe that, BTW, but if someone took over and used force to say it was so, then I guess it would be so no matter what my personal thoughts on the matter would be. Unless of course, I could muster a greater amount of force to prove them wrong.....

BBS wrote:The issue of legitimacy is distinct from the use of force, or rather enforcement of the law. Therefore, something of yours taken by force is still yours, by legitimate claim--as far as property rights are concerned.

Tell that to the native Americans.....Or any of the other multitude of peoples displaced, massacred and their property taken and the action called "legal" and "legitimate".

BBS wrote:For example, a legitimate use of force would be taking back your rightful property. An illegitimate use of force would be armed robbery.

It's that easy? Hmmm, if in your example of you and your buddies taking over my parents house, if I stormed in there and wasted you all (a legitimate use of force would you say?) and your family after the fact takes exception that I shot you and your buddies dead, they might feel they have a legitimate reason to exact "justice" (revenge) upon me. No matter my claims of the "legitimacy" of me using force upon you to protect my property rights.Hell, a court of law would label me a "vigilante" and toss me right in prison for that. An illegitimate use of force they'd call it.

BBS wrote:If you still think that "right by conquest" is legitimate, then with your position there's no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate claims to property. You may as well say that theft and voluntary trade are the same things, which doesn't make sense.

When the US does it, it's legitimate. When Iran does it, it's "aggression" and illegal. When the UK took colonies, forcibly and using force to hold those colonies, it was legitimate. The US in it's Revolution is considered by Americans as "legitimate" where as to the Brits, it was treason and thus not legitimate.

It's all in the details and depends from which angle you view it. Philosophically you can make a determination of what is and isn't legitimate, but all that means absolutely nothing if you do not have the ability to apply it. Without the force backing the claim of legitimacy, then whatever it is one thinks is legitimate won't be for very long. Someone else enacting their own "legitimate" claim will just come in and take it from you, and afterward call it "legal".

That's just how it is. I find it naive of people to not understand the role of violence in the application of natural rights, legal rights and all other things men and nations label as "legitimate".

A mob boss would consider it a legitimate use of force to waste the deadbeat who skipped out on his loanshark. The State would have another view of this I'd wager.It's all in the pudding.

saxitoxin wrote:I understand what Patches is saying - regardless of whatever bookish legitimacy we assign to the expropriation or repatriation of property ... rights, law and legitimacy is meaningless in the absence of (a) a regime to enforce it through violence, (b) the sudden death of all humans who are inclined to risk the safety of others to disobey the law (which is unlikely).

I don't think he's suggesting a survival of the fittest regime in international law, just that an egalitarian regime still requires violence to enforce its egalitarianism.

saxitoxin wrote:I agree with Patches. South America should forcibly retake Las Malvinas after giving a 90 days final offer of negotiation to the UK regime. Both of the principal British military officers during the '82 conflict say the UK is unable to launch a defense anymore so this should be able to be accomplished with minimal destruction.

If things heat up in the Persian Gulf, and NATO seems a bit preoccupied, then as ARG, I'd attack as well.

It would be interesting to see if the UK would nuke a major Argentinian city, thus killing millions of people to protect 3000 or so.

That's an interesting scenario.

If they did it would instantly reveal the location of all their nuclear weapons, since they're all stored on a single submarine, which would invite a devastating counter strike on Britain, or at least an attack to take-out the oil platforms in the North Sea, by one of the other nuclear powers; it would be an unheard-of opportunity for another nuclear power to suddenly know the precise location of every weapon of a second nuclear power. At the very least it would inspire Brazil to restart their nuclear weapons program, and probably Venezuela to start one. While the mullahs and imams dukes and viscounts running Britain are irrational enough to do it, for the last two reasons I don't think the U.S. would permit the UK to launch.

If ARG invaded the seas nearby Proper UK (i.e. by Continental Europe), then NATO would definitely get involved. Since ARG would want to avoid that likelihood, I wouldn't expect them to attack those oil platforms.

Wait... you just said "an attack... by one of the other nuclear powers." Why would any country join ARG in their war against UK, and most likely NATO (unless the US calls for peace)???

BigBallinStalin wrote:The issue of legitimacy is distinct from the use of force, or rather enforcement of the law. Therefore, something of yours taken by force is still yours, by legitimate claim--as far as property rights are concerned. The use of force/ enforcement is a separate issue. Enforcement can be used for restoring or protecting your legitimate claims, but it never grants you the "basis for legitimacy." Enforcement can be used to carry out the laws of a dictator as well. Legitimacy and enforcement are distinct concepts...

For example, a legitimate use of force would be taking back your rightful property. An illegitimate use of force would be armed robbery.

If you still think that "right by conquest" is legitimate, then with your position there's no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate claims to property. You may as well say that theft and voluntary trade are the same things, which doesn't make sense.

What's legitimate and what's not legitimate is decided by TPTB. China walks in and takes Tibet. We say it's not legitimate, the Chinese say otherwise.Israel took Jerusalem and now claim it as theirs and call it legitimate, others disagree.

Russia marched across Eastern Europe and brought down the Iron Curtain. To the Russians it was legitimate, to the US it was not. The US either lacked the will or the force required to see otherwise, so therefore Russian dominance over Eastern Europe was in effect quite legitimate. At least, until Russia not longer had the will or ability to hold on to those claims of "legitimacy" and lost their territories. Those who took the territories (the people living there) claim their own right to do so. And so it is, what is legitimate one day is not the next. It all depends on who has the will and ability to see to their claim.

I suppose you might just be playing devil's advocate. The Right of Conquest and the Spoils of War have always been legitimate prizes throughout history. France and England took spoils from Germany after WWI and called it legitimate and in doing so seeded the future war. At the time, Germany lacked the ability to apply force to dispute the allies legitimate claims and it took the Huns a good 20+ years before they could do something about.The US attacked Iraq and called it legitimate, and it was, did not Congress vote to use force? It became quite legitimate as far as the US was concerned.The US (and Europe) bombed the hell out of Libya and called it legitimate. And so it is. Ole Gadaffi lay dead now, sodomized just before he was killed and it is all legit. Saddam Hussein, legitimate leader of Iraq captured and tried. He was entirely correct when he said the Iraqi court which tried him did not have the legitimate right tto try him, for all the good that did Saddam as history shows us. He lacked the ability to apply force to uphold his legitimate claim where as the court that tried him had all the force required to try, convict and hang him dead.

In two sides of a dispute both are going to say they have a legitimate claim. Who is right? Who is wrong? Well, after they fight, the one left standing must be right....LOL

I'm not arguing the merits or the morality or the ethics of such, only that it exists and is a fundamental truth. I know you already know these things.

As to Trade and Theft being the same thing, there are certain....extreme Libertarian views (and anarchist, Marxist and other such philosophies) that argue Property is Theft. To them that's a legitimate claim. Depends on ones philosophy, Trade and Theft might just be the same thing. I don't happen to believe that, BTW, but if someone took over and used force to say it was so, then I guess it would be so no matter what my personal thoughts on the matter would be. Unless of course, I could muster a greater amount of force to prove them wrong.....

BBS wrote:The issue of legitimacy is distinct from the use of force, or rather enforcement of the law. Therefore, something of yours taken by force is still yours, by legitimate claim--as far as property rights are concerned.

Tell that to the native Americans.....Or any of the other multitude of peoples displaced, massacred and their property taken and the action called "legal" and "legitimate".

BBS wrote:For example, a legitimate use of force would be taking back your rightful property. An illegitimate use of force would be armed robbery.

It's that easy? Hmmm, if in your example of you and your buddies taking over my parents house, if I stormed in there and wasted you all (a legitimate use of force would you say?) and your family after the fact takes exception that I shot you and your buddies dead, they might feel they have a legitimate reason to exact "justice" (revenge) upon me. No matter my claims of the "legitimacy" of me using force upon you to protect my property rights.Hell, a court of law would label me a "vigilante" and toss me right in prison for that. An illegitimate use of force they'd call it.

BBS wrote:If you still think that "right by conquest" is legitimate, then with your position there's no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate claims to property. You may as well say that theft and voluntary trade are the same things, which doesn't make sense.

When the US does it, it's legitimate. When Iran does it, it's "aggression" and illegal. When the UK took colonies, forcibly and using force to hold those colonies, it was legitimate. The US in it's Revolution is considered by Americans as "legitimate" where as to the Brits, it was treason and thus not legitimate.

It's all in the details and depends from which angle you view it. Philosophically you can make a determination of what is and isn't legitimate, but all that means absolutely nothing if you do not have the ability to apply it. Without the force backing the claim of legitimacy, then whatever it is one thinks is legitimate won't be for very long. Someone else enacting their own "legitimate" claim will just come in and take it from you, and afterward call it "legal".

That's just how it is. I find it naive of people to not understand the role of violence in the application of natural rights, legal rights and all other things men and nations label as "legitimate".

A mob boss would consider it a legitimate use of force to waste the deadbeat who skipped out on his loanshark. The State would have another view of this I'd wager.It's all in the pudding.

I know how it works, patches, and I'm not naive about that. We're talking about legitimacy. rights, and enforcement, so keep it relevant please.

Here's the problem. I'm applying these concepts using methodological individualism (basically, at the individual level), and I'm coming from a position which distinguishes between "legitimate" and "illegitimate," explains the difference between enforcement and the idea of rights (e.g. property rights), and understands the difference between voluntary and involuntary exchanges. Your position just smooshes all those together without explaining why. You just keep saying, "well, use of force is the justification." Your position can't tell the difference between theft and voluntary trade... (that still makes no sense).

Your position is basically "it's legitimate because the nation-state says so," which is just as nonsensical as the "divine right of the king" or the "Mandate of Heaven" claim. If you're going to appeal to authority, I can still ask the question: why? So, you're still lacking good reasons for your argument.

Just because nation-states invade land, kill a bunch of people, and sign treaties with parties under duress, it still doesn't follow that the exchange was legitimate or voluntary. Why? Because we can hold the actions of governments to an objective standard, e.g. property rights, voluntary exchange, etc. If we agree on these things, then we have a standard of legitimacy, and can then distinguish between armed robbery and trade.

As to Trade and Theft being the same thing, there are certain....extreme Libertarian views (and anarchist, Marxist and other such philosophies) that argue Property is Theft. To them that's a legitimate claim. Depends on ones philosophy, Trade and Theft might just be the same thing. I don't happen to believe that, BTW, but if someone took over and used force to say it was so, then I guess it would be so no matter what my personal thoughts on the matter would be. Unless of course, I could muster a greater amount of force to prove them wrong.....

"if someone took over and used force to say it was so, then I guess it would be so no matter what my personal thoughts on the matter would be."

You understand that such an action is not just, right? You can tell the difference between just and unjust, correct? If yes, then how so?

(If you say, "it's just because I can't effectively defend my property," or "because they took it by stronger force," then you have no meaningful concept of justice. Justice would equal injustice from such a position. That's contradictory, which is what's been driving me crazy about your arguments ITT)

saxitoxin wrote:I agree with Patches. South America should forcibly retake Las Malvinas after giving a 90 days final offer of negotiation to the UK regime. Both of the principal British military officers during the '82 conflict say the UK is unable to launch a defense anymore so this should be able to be accomplished with minimal destruction.

If things heat up in the Persian Gulf, and NATO seems a bit preoccupied, then as ARG, I'd attack as well.

It would be interesting to see if the UK would nuke a major Argentinian city, thus killing millions of people to protect 3000 or so.

That's an interesting scenario.

If they did it would instantly reveal the location of all their nuclear weapons, since they're all stored on a single submarine, which would invite a devastating counter strike on Britain, or at least an attack to take-out the oil platforms in the North Sea, by one of the other nuclear powers; it would be an unheard-of opportunity for another nuclear power to suddenly know the precise location of every weapon of a second nuclear power. At the very least it would inspire Brazil to restart their nuclear weapons program, and probably Venezuela to start one. While the mullahs and imams dukes and viscounts running Britain are irrational enough to do it, for the last two reasons I don't think the U.S. would permit the UK to launch.

If ARG invaded the seas nearby Proper UK (i.e. by Continental Europe), then NATO would definitely get involved. Since ARG would want to avoid that likelihood, I wouldn't expect them to attack those oil platforms.

Wait... you just said "an attack... by one of the other nuclear powers." Why would any country join ARG in their war against UK, and most likely NATO (unless the US calls for peace)???

Argentina doesn't have the capability to attack the UK proper. But, it's in the interest of all other nuclear powers, including the US, to see reverse proliferation and this would be a handy excuse to roll-back one state.

In my mind, I would expect Russia might be interested in taking out Clyde, Scotland - where Britain's unloaded nukes are stored - in the interest of international peace and stability in the face of an illegal first-use of nukes against a non-nuclear weapons state. It would be hard to imagine other NATO countries would have the political will to stand behind the UK in such a scenario and would probably signal a stand-down to let Russia engage in a limited attack on the UK (perhaps including an airburst over the North Sea to render the oil platforms unusable and cut-off Britain's supply of oil).

The US wouldn't want Russia anywhere near its (economically) significant NATO allies. That would set bad precedent, give Mother Russia a +1 on the US/NATO, and make the US look weak (which US policymakers are notoriously concerned about). If the US wanted the UK's nukes in that scenario, then they'd take 'em themselves, or have other NATO allies do so.

And, the UNSC resolution would never grant Russia that authority since the NATO-SC members would vote Against. So, if Russia did invade, or showed certain signs of invading, then we'd have a nuclear war between the US and Russia, or the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis, which the US and Russia really don't want to repeat.

I don't see why the US would want reverse proliferation when they've been recently selling the Brits nuclear weapons. (Sure, there's a profit from stealing what the US recently sold, but diplomatically, I'd imagine that to be way too costly).

BigBallinStalin wrote:The US wouldn't want Russia anywhere near its (economically) significant NATO allies. That would set bad precedent, give Mother Russia a +1 on the US/NATO, and make the US look weak (which US policymakers are notoriously concerned about). If the US wanted the UK's nukes in that scenario, then they'd take 'em themselves, or have other NATO allies do so.

And, the UNSC resolution would never grant Russia that authority since the NATO-SC members would vote Against. So, if Russia did invade, or showed certain signs of invading, then we'd have a nuclear war between the US and Russia, or the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis, which the US and Russia really don't want to repeat.

I don't see why the US would want reverse proliferation when they've been recently selling the Brits nuclear weapons. (Sure, there's a profit from stealing what the US recently sold, but diplomatically, I'd imagine that to be way too costly).

I think this entire process would be over within about 45 minutes after the poms attacked B.A. and there wouldn't be much time for debates in the UN. If Russia dropped a 1MT bomb on Clyde or Aberdeen and then immediately declared it had no further aggressive intentions I don't think the US would risk further escalation by retaliation, especially since public opinion would be decidedly against Britain in the aftermath of a first-strike.

I don't remember who it was, I think one of the JCS chairmen, who got in trouble back in the '70's for letting slip in an interview with some newspaper that the U.S. actually had no plans to ever use nuclear weapons to defend any of its allies; they would only ever use them if North America were attacked. (Seymour Hersh mentioned it in his book "The Samson Option" -- I'll see if I can find it.*)

* I was incorrect, it was Secretary of State Christian Herter who said "we won't engage in nuclear war unless we're in danger of all-out devastation ourselves." Hersh says this slip was the impetus for the start of the French nuclear program.

BigBallinStalin wrote:The US wouldn't want Russia anywhere near its (economically) significant NATO allies. That would set bad precedent, give Mother Russia a +1 on the US/NATO, and make the US look weak (which US policymakers are notoriously concerned about). If the US wanted the UK's nukes in that scenario, then they'd take 'em themselves, or have other NATO allies do so.

And, the UNSC resolution would never grant Russia that authority since the NATO-SC members would vote Against. So, if Russia did invade, or showed certain signs of invading, then we'd have a nuclear war between the US and Russia, or the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis, which the US and Russia really don't want to repeat.

I don't see why the US would want reverse proliferation when they've been recently selling the Brits nuclear weapons. (Sure, there's a profit from stealing what the US recently sold, but diplomatically, I'd imagine that to be way too costly).

I think this entire process would be over within about 45 minutes after the poms attacked B.A. and there wouldn't be much time for debates in the UN. If Russia dropped a 1MT bomb on Clyde or Aberdeen and then immediately declared it had no further aggressive intentions I don't think the US would risk further escalation by retaliation, especially since public opinion would be decidedly against Britain in the aftermath of a first-strike.

This would be the most awkward moment in history.

If your scenario were true, that would be a huge gamble for ARG. I don't think they're crazy enough to risk it, nor do I see why the Russians would get involved. All they have to do is sit back and let NATO/UK suffer.

... Yeah, but I'm not sure what the US would do if the UK nuked millions of civilians... I have to think about this.

saxitoxin wrote:I don't remember who it was, I think one of the JCS chairmen, who got in trouble back in the '70's for letting slip in an interview with some newspaper that the U.S. actually had no plans to ever use nuclear weapons to defend any of its allies; they would only ever use them if North America were attacked. (Seymour Hersh mentioned it in his book "The Samson Option" -- I'll see if I can find it.)

BigBallinStalin wrote:The US wouldn't want Russia anywhere near its (economically) significant NATO allies. That would set bad precedent, give Mother Russia a +1 on the US/NATO, and make the US look weak (which US policymakers are notoriously concerned about). If the US wanted the UK's nukes in that scenario, then they'd take 'em themselves, or have other NATO allies do so.

And, the UNSC resolution would never grant Russia that authority since the NATO-SC members would vote Against. So, if Russia did invade, or showed certain signs of invading, then we'd have a nuclear war between the US and Russia, or the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis, which the US and Russia really don't want to repeat.

I don't see why the US would want reverse proliferation when they've been recently selling the Brits nuclear weapons. (Sure, there's a profit from stealing what the US recently sold, but diplomatically, I'd imagine that to be way too costly).

I think this entire process would be over within about 45 minutes after the poms attacked B.A. and there wouldn't be much time for debates in the UN. If Russia dropped a 1MT bomb on Clyde or Aberdeen and then immediately declared it had no further aggressive intentions I don't think the US would risk further escalation by retaliation, especially since public opinion would be decidedly against Britain in the aftermath of a first-strike.

This would be the most awkward moment in history.

If your scenario were true, that would be a huge gamble for ARG. I don't think they're crazy enough to risk it, nor do I see why the Russians would get involved. All they have to do is sit back and let NATO/UK suffer.

... Yeah, but I'm not sure what the US would do if the UK nuked millions of civilians... I have to think about this.

It would be no gamble for Argentina. They've just had 20% of their population wiped out. Argentina wouldn't be able to protect themselves against Uruguay at that point. Russia would be the one on the offensive. They would have a fast window of opportunity to eliminate a regional competitor (UK) with no political or military blow-back.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Please do because that's a really good fact to have around.

BigBallinStalin wrote:The US wouldn't want Russia anywhere near its (economically) significant NATO allies. That would set bad precedent, give Mother Russia a +1 on the US/NATO, and make the US look weak (which US policymakers are notoriously concerned about). If the US wanted the UK's nukes in that scenario, then they'd take 'em themselves, or have other NATO allies do so.

And, the UNSC resolution would never grant Russia that authority since the NATO-SC members would vote Against. So, if Russia did invade, or showed certain signs of invading, then we'd have a nuclear war between the US and Russia, or the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis, which the US and Russia really don't want to repeat.

I don't see why the US would want reverse proliferation when they've been recently selling the Brits nuclear weapons. (Sure, there's a profit from stealing what the US recently sold, but diplomatically, I'd imagine that to be way too costly).

I think this entire process would be over within about 45 minutes after the poms attacked B.A. and there wouldn't be much time for debates in the UN. If Russia dropped a 1MT bomb on Clyde or Aberdeen and then immediately declared it had no further aggressive intentions I don't think the US would risk further escalation by retaliation, especially since public opinion would be decidedly against Britain in the aftermath of a first-strike.

This would be the most awkward moment in history.

If your scenario were true, that would be a huge gamble for ARG. I don't think they're crazy enough to risk it, nor do I see why the Russians would get involved. All they have to do is sit back and let NATO/UK suffer.

... Yeah, but I'm not sure what the US would do if the UK nuked millions of civilians... I have to think about this.

It would be no gamble for Argentina. They've just had 20% of their population wiped out. Argentina wouldn't be able to protect themselves against Uruguay at that point. Russia would be the one on the offensive. They would have a fast window of opportunity to eliminate a regional competitor (UK) with no political or military blow-back.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Please do because that's a really good fact to have around.

New documents from South Atlantic War declassified - Reagan demanded Britain submit Isles Malvinas to UN control on the eve of British sneak attack on Puerto Soledad.

The papers detail how Thatcher urgently sought U.S. President Ronald Reagan's support when Argentina's intentions became clear, and reveal Thatcher's exasperation with Reagan when he suggested that Britain negotiate rather than demand Argentinian withdrawal.

The documents describe an unusual late night phone call from Reagan to Thatcher on May 31, 1982 — while British forces were beginning the battle for control of the Falklands capital — in which the president pressed the prime minister to put the islands in the hands of international peacekeepers rather than press for an Argentinian surrender.

saxitoxin wrote:New documents from South Atlantic War declassified - Reagan demanded Britain submit Isles Malvinas to UN control on the eve of British sneak attack on Puerto Soledad.

The papers detail how Thatcher urgently sought U.S. President Ronald Reagan's support when Argentina's intentions became clear, and reveal Thatcher's exasperation with Reagan when he suggested that Britain negotiate rather than demand Argentinian withdrawal.

The documents describe an unusual late night phone call from Reagan to Thatcher on May 31, 1982 — while British forces were beginning the battle for control of the Falklands capital — in which the president pressed the prime minister to put the islands in the hands of international peacekeepers rather than press for an Argentinian surrender.

Thatcher's response to the Falklands crisis was entirely legitimate, in fact she had no other option. Roughly 2,000 islanders had fallen into the hands of an aggressive fascist dictatorship which had murdered 70,000 of its own people in extra-judicial killings. What NATO-backed western liberal democracy could ever allow that to happen without reaching for the military solution, if the opponent refused to accept only a complete withdrawal? She was lucky in so many regards though. She had the best-trained military in the world at her disposal and, more importantly, the British aircraft carriers that were due to be removed from service some months after the invasion were still serviceable at that point. The really shocking thing to emerge in these newly declassified documents is the position of the US. It seemed ready to place its utterly misguided and paranoid policy of backing any regime in South America as long as it wasn't 'communist' ahead of supporting its oldest and closest ally. As if the British government was ever going to send 250 military personel to die in the South Atlantic before handing the islands over to a joint US/Brazilian peace force just to appease a fascist junta (the US attempt at a late diplomatic solution).

Thatcher's response to the Falklands crisis was entirely legitimate, in fact she had no other option. Roughly 2,000 islanders had fallen into the hands of an aggressive fascist dictatorship which had murdered 70,000 of its own people in extra-judicial killings. What NATO-backed western liberal democracy could ever allow that to happen without reaching for the military solution, if the opponent refused to accept only a complete withdrawal? She was lucky in so many regards though. She had the best-trained military in the world at her disposal and, more importantly, the British aircraft carriers that were due to be removed from service some months after the invasion were still serviceable at that point. The really shocking thing to emerge in these newly declassified documents is the position of the US. It seemed ready to place its utterly misguided and paranoid policy of backing any regime in South America as long as it wasn't 'communist' ahead of supporting its oldest and closest ally. As if the British government was ever going to send 250 military personel to die in the South Atlantic before handing the islands over to a joint US/Brazilian peace force just to appease a fascist junta (the US attempt at a late diplomatic solution).

inflating the figure by 600% must be racially motivated to maximize the perception of Latin society as less civilized than Anglo-European; therefore, the reader's opinion is racist and can be ignored

the UK must hand over Isles Malvinas immediately and it should also enter negotiations regarding the peaceful transfer of Cornwall to Argentina, as compensation for losses Argentina incurred during the '82 conflict

- "It is not a matter for negotiation. Not one single country in the world recognises the sovereignty of the United Kingdom in the Malvinas."

- "I don't think it will take another 20 years. I think that the world is going through a process of understanding more and more that this is a colonial issue, an issue of colonialism, and that the people living there were transferred to the islands."